On the one hand, the court process is critical since it safeguards citizens’ constitutional rights to equal protection and due process stipulated under the law. Courts are created under the constitution and mandated to resolve rows and administer most rationally and fairly. The critical mandate makes institutions best suited to address civil rights issues since they provide opportunities for involved parties to have their arguments heard by a neutral jury. In this judicial system, the aggrieved parties have a chance to present their case and either win or lose a case depending on the jury’s ruling. Judges preside on matters in line with the country’s laws within which they operate, thus eliminating the need for radical actions such as civil disobedience. Court procedures, including passing laws and winning cases, are well laid out and streamlined, making it a much better civil rights approach.
On the other hand, a radical style that involves direct action coupled with acts of civil defiance may succeed in changing others’ minds and the views of legislatures. However, the strategy has a significant downside; for instance, a march planned and started as non-violent disobedience can quickly spin out of control where there are some violent individuals among the demonstrators. When protests take such a turn and are not controlled in time, then the aftermath can be the destruction of property, injuries, and loss of lives. Violent protestors can engage law enforcers in fierce exchange and running battles resulting in arrests and imprisonments, thus defeating the purpose of the activism. Furthermore, civil noncompliance attempts to define and shape the morality of a country, even where fair laws exist. The acts try to impose certain moral views on all persons living in a country without considering that what is wrong and right differs greatly from one individual to another.